from a rock...

[lucaspa]

One said "no, she came from the Primordial soup" he asked what that was and laughed at her because she said that rain came down and washed the minerals off rocks into the P(sic) soup.

Minerals comprise rocks. and us. Aren't we just minerals If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Then calcuim rushes in..." I would be able to pay off my student loans

We are mostly organic molecules composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. None of those, strictly speaking, are minerals.

The inorganic part of our bones is a mineral -- hydroxyapetite -- composed of calcium and phosphate, mostly.

There are many ways that organic compounds can be synthesized by simple chemical reactions. From basic organic compounds -- methane, cyanide, etc -- the organic chemicals that are the building blocks or the larger molecules in our body can be made. These building blocks are amino acids, pyrimidine and purine bases (adenine, thymine, uridine, cytidine, guanosine), and sugars can be made. The "primordial soup" is shorthand for these building blocks being dissolved in the early oceans.

 

[pureone]

We are mostly organic molecules composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. None of those, strictly speaking, are minerals.

Don't let my name fool you. I need the geology lessens, not chemistry and biology.
I know. I have been through organic and biochem. And physiology. And anatomy. all sort of things biomed/biotech/bichem/biological chemistry/dna so on. where all the minerals I speak of come into play. I'm not arguing that we didn't come from a rock. I just say that everything, including rocks and us are made of the same elements. We use minerals in very specific and helpful ways

The inorganic part of our bones is a mineral -- hydroxyapetite -- composed of calcium and phosphate, mostly.

And during fossilization it is replaced by harder minerals, yes? Forming a "rock"? In laymans terms, rocks have different properties. some rocks are "harder" than others. do all igneous rocks have the same properties? do all sed. rocks? what makes them different? does mineral composition cause different rocks to form? I'm not sure. Is there a geologist in the house? Is it elements form minerals and minerals form rocks? igneous? sed?

There are many ways that organic compounds can be synthesized by simple chemical reactions. From basic organic compounds -- methane, cyanide, etc -- the organic chemicals that are the building blocks or the larger molecules in our body can be made. These building blocks are amino acids, pyrimidine and purine bases (adenine, thymine, uridine, cytidine, guanosine), and sugars can be made. The "primordial soup" is shorthand for these building blocks being dissolved in the early oceans.

Yes i know. P. soup and the 1953 experiment.
My point is more the physiological aspect. ions rushing in and out.
And without any of these things I mentioned, your stay here would be shortlived. i am saying that it seems like a big hint or clue that we are made up of all the same stuff as everything else (what else would there be) and are dependent on it to live. It's more just a joke that since MR. Hovind is distancing himself from a rock, he should try to remove them from himself altogether.

 

[pureone]

Sorry, hope i didn't sound snooty. I just am very familiar with this topic.

A different question seperate than this topic. Do extant facultative anaerobes make good examples as transition species? are there dna libraries for these organisms and the nearest relatives on the cladistic ladder (I'm more of a cladist)? If so, wouldn't it be better to use these as examples as not to confuse and insult everyone who still thinks we came straight from "monkeys"?

 

[lucaspa]

Don't let my name fool you. I need the geology lessens, not chemistry and biology.
I know. I have been through organic and biochem. And physiology. And anatomy. all sort of things biomed/biotech/bichem/biological chemistry/dna so on. where all the minerals I speak of come into play. I'm not arguing that we didn't come from a rock. I just say that everything, including rocks and us are made of the same elements. We use minerals in very specific and helpful ways

you should be arguing that we didn't come from a rock. Because a rock doesn't have the organics that make up most of our bodies.

You've been all through those, have you? I don't mean to be rude, but you are doing a poor job of demonstrating it. You see, I've been all thru that too, in getting my Ph.D. in Biochemistry. Still am going thru it, for that matter since the field never stops. I would never have guessed that you had this knowledge.

And during fossilization it is replaced by harder minerals, yes? Forming a "rock"?

Your bones are already rock. In fossilization the organic component of the matrix, mostly type I collagen, is replaced by minerals.

Is it elements form minerals and minerals form rocks? igneous? sed?

Didn't you have any inorganic chemistry before you started your bio courses? Elements for minerals and rocks are composed of minerals. You can do a simply web search to tell you about igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks.

Yes i know. P. soup and the 1953 experiment.

Miller-Urey is only one experiment and only one of several ways to get the building blocks.

My point is more the physiological aspect. ions rushing in and out.
And without any of these things I mentioned, your stay here would be shortlived. i am saying that it seems like a big hint or clue that we are made up of all the same stuff as everything else (what else would there be) and are dependent on it to live. It's more just a joke that since MR. Hovind is distancing himself from a rock, he should try to remove them from himself altogether.

Since the ions are in solution, the analogy is not to a rock but to seawater. Dissolved inorganic elements like calcium, potassium, sodium, and chloride.

Hovind picked rock as a strawman precisely because it lacks the organic compounds necessary to make proteins and DNA, which his audience knows makes up us. I think Arikay provided the perfect counter by pointing to Genesis 2 where Adam is indeed made from a rock (dust). If Hovind thinks the idea is so ludicrous, then Hovind just killed the very Bible he is supposedly trying to protect!

 

[lucaspa]

A different question seperate than this topic. Do extant facultative anaerobes make good examples as transition species? are there dna libraries for these organisms and the nearest relatives on the cladistic ladder (I'm more of a cladist)? If so, wouldn't it be better to use these as examples as not to confuse and insult everyone who still thinks we came straight from "monkeys"?

Probably not. The facultive anaerobes also have 3.8 billion years of evolution behind them. Their anaerobic and aerobic biochemical pathways are, to the best of my knowledge, identical to the corresponding pathways in full anaerobes and full aerobes. Therefore, there is no transition that is readily seen.

And since monkeys and humans share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and bacteria, going back that far wouldn't help. Particularly since there is an excellent series of transitional individuals linking H. sapiens (us) back thru two species to A. afarensis which is definitely not human.

 

[pureone]

you should be arguing that we didn't come from a rock. Because a rock doesn't have the organics that make up most of our bodies.

I was talking more about the minerals for function than the building blocks:Na+/K+ channels, Cl - ions, Ca2+ S.R/ Fe 2,3, any other one you might think of , as I know that many more play roles, just the biggies and most familiar. I just meant that many of the functional minerals enter our forms as "rocks", or used to in our evoulutionary pathway.

You've been all through those, have you? I don't mean to be rude, but you are doing a poor job of demonstrating it. You see, I've been all thru that too, in getting my Ph.D. in Biochemistry. Still am going thru it, for that matter since the field never stops. I would never have guessed that you had this knowledge.

My apologies.I was the rude one. I just was being terse in my typing and didn't explain myself fully. or go into detail. I know it never stops. I like learning these things. My favorite reference book is Michal's "Biochemical Pathways" 1999. Good stuff in there, but every time I go to NCBI i find references to enzymes that are not in that book.

Your bones are already rock. In fossilization the organic component of the matrix, mostly type I collagen, is replaced by minerals

I know, I just didn't want to call them rock cause then everyone would yell at me and say we are not rock. I Lose either way

Didn't you have any inorganic chemistry before you started your bio courses? Elements for minerals and rocks are composed of minerals. You can do a simply web search to tell you about igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks.

Miller-Urey is only one experiment and only one of several ways to get the building blocks.

No, our pre-professional (biomed) doesn't have inorganic as a requirement, except pre pharm, but they end up in biochem major anyway . we're more biotech.
I did say elements-minerals-rocks in the above post. I talk geology with a fiend (and a friend)who is finishing his geology degree.

Since the ions are in solution, the analogy is not to a rock but to seawater. Dissolved inorganic elements like calcium, potassium, sodium, and chloride.

And I only was saying that our sources today are not seawater but rocks. How did earlier hominoids get those minerals? Why is it good that my dogs chew "rocks"-bones (besides tasting good to them?)calcuim.
I just am very dependent on these rocks for my continued function. that is more what i meant. .


Oh, and are we sure that creation took mud? After all, there are two creation stories.In the first story (gen 1) god just wills all these things into existance. no reference to mud or any sort of building material for any creatures. doesn't that break some laws of physics? then the second creation myth (gen 2)is the same except that god took mud (my bible actually says dust) for Adam, and then rock(a rib bone) for eve.

 

[pureone]

I just meant a transition species. Not a Microorganism -human link but more a microorganism/microorganism link.

 

[pureone]

you should be arguing that we didn't come from a rock. Because a rock doesn't have the organics that make up most of our bodies

Where did the compounds in the seawater come from?
Uh, now you confused me. Organics as in carbon containing compounds? but I can't count a rock that is all carbon? The basic building blocks came from the rocks, yes, but I know that the rocks themselves didn't start living. If the functional groups in organisms didn't come from minerals and elements in the rocks via rain and seawater, then where did they come from?

 

[lucaspa]

Where did the compounds in the seawater come from?
Uh, now you confused me. Organics as in carbon containing compounds? but I can't count a rock that is all carbon?

The only rocks that are "all carbon" are coal and diamonds, and they came from depositions of living organisms.

The basic building blocks came from the rocks, yes,

NO! The basic building blocks did not come from the rocks. The amino acids, sugars, and bases came originally from gases, not rocks. Methane, cyanide, nitrogen, etc. These either dissolve in seawater to react at hydrothermal vents or react in the atmosphere to form amino acids, sugars, and bases.

Some of these gases get frozen out on comets and asteroids in interstellar space, react to form organics there, and then are delivered to earth when the comets impact the planet.

 

[lucaspa]

I was talking more about the minerals for function than the building blocks:Na+/K+ channels, Cl - ions, Ca2+ S.R/ Fe 2,3, any other one you might think of , as I know that many more play roles, just the biggies and most familiar. I just meant that many of the functional minerals enter our forms as "rocks", or used to in our evoulutionary pathway.

That is as inaccurate as Hovind's original claim. The chemicals you are talking about are all ions, aren't they? They don't enter as "rocks", but as dissolved ions.

I know, I just didn't want to call them rock cause then everyone would yell at me and say we are not rock. I Lose either way

But bones are rocks. Or partly rocks. Don't run away from facts.

And I only was saying that our sources today are not seawater but rocks. How did earlier hominoids get those minerals? Why is it good that my dogs chew "rocks"-bones (besides tasting good to them?)calcuim.
I just am very dependent on these rocks for my continued function. that is more what i meant. .

You are dependent on the elements. Your sources of these elements today are:
1. Dried seawater -- salt.
2. Seawater contained in plant and animal cells. With the ancestors of the plants and animals having evolved in seawater and therefore the salt and mineral content of cells closely resembles seawater. This is the source that early hominids used.

Oh, and are we sure that creation took mud? After all, there are two creation stories.In the first story (gen 1) god just wills all these things into existance. no reference to mud or any sort of building material for any creatures.

Very good. You just found one of many contradictions between the creation story in Genesis 1 and the one in Genesis 2. What you will find is that creationists say there is only one creation story and try to reconcile the two. Often they ignore the the contradiction in the method of creation between Genesis 1 and 2. Which is what Hovind does.

Sometimes you will find it easier to refute the argument if you don't go into all the details. Which is what Arikay did by using the Genesis 2 account. Hovind accepts Genesis 2 as accurate. Therefore data Hovind accepts as accurate falsifies one of Hovind's claims: humans don't come from rocks. The irony is fun and you don't have to get into the whole two creation account explanation. Remember the claims. You don't have to falsify Biblical literalism, but only Hovind's claim that humans don't come from rocks.

doesn't that break some laws of physics?

Maybe. So? The point here is that you can't use the "laws of physics" to deny data. IF a deity really had spoken humans into existence, then it is the laws of physics that would have to give way.

then the second creation myth (gen 2)is the same except that god took mud (my bible actually says dust) for Adam, and then rock(a rib bone) for eve.

There are many more differences in the two creation stories than this. But yes, for creating humans Genesis 2 has Adam being "formed" from dust and Eve being made from Adam's rib. Very different from Genesis 1:26-27.

 

[pureone]

Ok i see, gases. That makes sense. i get it., just out of curiosity, now we have gases, they travel up into space. they then freeze or react with a comet and then come back. now, isn't a comet a ball of rock, dust and ice? and the odds of it hiting earth just right? whew, I blew my dopamine allotment for today.

 

[pureone]

yes , i know they are ions, but again, where do the ions come from? we ingest calcium carbonate to get a calcium ...

 

[ElElohe]

1) It would be just as easy, no offense to your respectable friend, for the University to put on his plate and feed him with a spoon things that are out of line and truth as well.

2) And as for his rock illustration, he is just taking the theory to it's logical conclusion.

I am new to the forum and do not know exactly what has been discussed, but have been interested in MR. Hovinds "debates" due to some YEC showings of his videos at my university. Two things have sprung to my mind.
1. A christian roommate of the presentation leader has become disillusioned with his YEC roommates and has told me how much he finds Hovind to be out of line and out of truth. Oh, and this fellow is a cell biology major. and Christian. Also a kind of fella one can respect. he likes a good discussion.

2. M.r Hovind simplifies evolution as coming from a rock, and he does't beleive that he has any connection to a rock. That in mind, I challenge him to live from this time forward without any of the following things in his body or his diet: Boron, Calcium, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Magnesium, Manganese, molybendium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, Silica, Vanadium, sodium, Iron and any other trace minerals you can think of.
tell me what you think -

 

[pureone]

1) It would be just as easy, no offense to your respectable friend, for the University to put on his plate and feed him with a spoon things that are out of line and truth as well.

I know, I have seen students present items at research colloquiums as truths because the backing professor beleives it.. but apparently some things don't need stat's and data to be presentable...

2) And as for his rock illustration, he is just taking the theory to it's logical conclusion.

yeah, i've been tryingto get there myself but am being thwarted at every turn by those who have good answers..
So far we are to gasses in the atmosphere, which Iwill venture a guess as coming from geothermic processes. So I now have frozen rock comet and fluid rock helping.

 

[Philosoft]

Ok i see, gases. That makes sense. i get it., just out of curiosity, now we have gases, they travel up into space. they then freeze or react with a comet and then come back.

No, gases do not do this. Comets are probably remnants of solar system formation. The stuff they are composed of is not captured planetary material.

now, isn't a comet a ball of rock, dust and ice? and the odds of it hiting earth just right? whew, I blew my dopamine allotment for today.

Well, the evidence that the earth has been hit by large rocky things in the relatively distant past is irrefutable. We know there are lots of comets collected just outside our solar system that orbit the sun. Why is this such a difficult connection to make?

 

[Jet Black]

and the odds of it hitting earth just right?

well early on in the formation of the solar system it would have been very high. look at the moon for example, it is absolutely peppered with craters - earth would have been bombarded alot more than that! we do have an atmosphere though, so alot of them will have burnt up before they hit the ground... still it would have been an interesting time for stargazers.

 

[lucaspa]

1) It would be just as easy, no offense to your respectable friend, for the University to put on his plate and feed him with a spoon things that are out of line and truth as well.

2) And as for his rock illustration, he is just taking the theory to it's logical conclusion.

1. No it wouldn't. Because to qualify as part of science the data has to be available to everybody. Thus pureone's friend can always go and check the data for himself. Kinda hard to put one over on someone when they can check everything you say.

2. The rock illustration is making a strawman of the theory: inaccurately changing the theory to something that is easier to argue against. First, evolution isn't abiogenesis and second, noone in abiogenesis claims the first life came from a rock.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok i see, gases. That makes sense. i get it., just out of curiosity, now we have gases, they travel up into space. they then freeze or react with a comet and then come back. now, isn't a comet a ball of rock, dust and ice? and the odds of it hiting earth just right? whew, I blew my dopamine allotment for today.

Too many steps. Gasses form in space. They form from material ejected from novae and supernovae and from gas (hydrogen) already in space. Since space is cold most gases will freeze, even oxygen and nitrogen. It is cold enough for hydrogen to become liquid.

The odds of "hitting the earth just right" are a lot higher when the earth is just forming and 1) gravity is much lower and 2) there isn't an atmosphere to generate the heat of friction as the comet comes thru it. So, soft landings are a lot more common.

And remember, the building blocks have already been formed on the comet as the gasses and other chemicals in the comet react.

As to "chewing calcium carbonate", what happens after you chew it? It goes to the stomach, which is HCl solution at pH 1.0. What does that do? It dissociates the calcium carbonate to Ca2+ and CO2 and water. So you are really dealing with ions again.

Finally, it is only in the last 20 years that calcium supplements and Tums have been around. Before that you got your calcium from milk (dissolved ions) or the calcium in the muscles of dead animals (meat). Also ions.

 

[pureone]

Ok. all makes better sense. thanks everyone. I'm an evolutionist just trying to gather these last things for myself.
The point of the calcium carbonate is the source of the ions. not whether they are ions. It is still limestone (yum!) that I eat. Until they are dissolved in solution are they still not in a rock form?
that's about my last bit for this. This clarifies much and I thank you all for helping.

 

[pureone]

Oh, I know we've been hit much. just throwing out all the old trusted anti-points- you know 'what has hit us lately?' sort of drivel.
In fact, one of my favorite things is how the meteor and the dust cloud could not have caused extinction. Endothermic creatures (dinos) died and exothermic (Crocs) lived. good stuff.